- This topic has 25,906 replies, 115 voices, and was last updated 3 hours, 54 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (charity @ April 30 2012,06:54) Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2012,10:01) Charity, 'Even a child is known by whether there is conduct is loving”. Your conduct is not; even though you may think it is. If it was then you would not level false accusations or judge by your measures.
God judged the hearts of Cain and Abel when they sacrificed and Cain's motivations were unloving while Abel's demonstrated love.
So do you believe it is right to reward the hater as well as the lover?
excuse me, Cain A TILLER OF THE GROUND! remember the piunishment! bought an offering of the fruit of the ground, an Abel A SHEPERD OF THE SHEEP, preacher, bought the best blood sacrifice….an Cain was humiliated for bringing his offering to the table…..maybe Cain's offering was more sensible…? an Jesus would have lived? tormenting brothers about about how worthy they are is not loving…This will go on till people an the stupidity of creating Gods Nature an specking self owned thoughts as his voice stops.King James Version (KJV)
Genesis –Gen 4:1¶And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
(he was serious in pleasing God) the heart was pure!An to also note Law broken, that older child”s god given credibility to rule was given over to serve the younger…Abel commenced blood sacrificing an offering.. against cain first born… fruits of the ground….Jesus may have lived to a grey head old man if Cain's barley was prefered an favored…..this to could have been as pleasing to the God that latter called of the sacrifice an offering anyway…
Chatity,Scriptures assume you believe God is loving at will intetpret it according to that love.
Quote Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. ” Quote Deuteronomy 17:1
New International Version (NIV)17 Do not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect or flaw in it, for that would be detestable to him.
Since God is unhappy with Cain's sacrifice; it means it had a defect. A defect that was mirrored in Cain's heart.
We are told Abel sacrificed the best parts of his best animals while Cain just gave some of his crops. Cain merely had to change his ways and put more effort into giving the best of best to God; just as Abel did. Instead he chose to get rid of his competition.
Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2012,19:30) Frank, John is not the only one of the First Century that spoke Philo, a Jew of Alexander, did also. Philo called the Word, the first born Son of God. Philo clearly teaches the Word is a non-person personification.
Quote Of particular note are his references to The Logos as the Divine Reason, by participation in which humans are rational; the model of the universe; the superintendent or governor of the universe; and the first-born son of God. According to my source these are a summary of the words of a brother Hebrew and contemporary of John; who like John was speaking to the Greeks. From what I have heard he explicitly denied the Word was a person but that he chose to personify it because Scripture does.
Nick is speaking a teaching about the Word that did exist at the time. If you wish to neuter the gender then the Son of God becomes the Child of God.
Here is my source.
Hi KW,
Greeks glorify reason and try to put it alongside the ways of God.1Cor 2 summarises God's view of their nonsense.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
LoLyou dont know the meaning of begotten do you?
verse 18 says monogeneses huios! begotten son!
the word is the son of GOD! case closed
Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2012,20:09) Quote (charity @ April 30 2012,06:54) Quote (kerwin @ April 30 2012,10:01) Charity, 'Even a child is known by whether there is conduct is loving”. Your conduct is not; even though you may think it is. If it was then you would not level false accusations or judge by your measures.
God judged the hearts of Cain and Abel when they sacrificed and Cain's motivations were unloving while Abel's demonstrated love.
So do you believe it is right to reward the hater as well as the lover?
excuse me, Cain A TILLER OF THE GROUND! remember the piunishment! bought an offering of the fruit of the ground, an Abel A SHEPERD OF THE SHEEP, preacher, bought the best blood sacrifice….an Cain was humiliated for bringing his offering to the table…..maybe Cain's offering was more sensible…? an Jesus would have lived? tormenting brothers about about how worthy they are is not loving…This will go on till people an the stupidity of creating Gods Nature an specking self owned thoughts as his voice stops.King James Version (KJV)
Genesis –Gen 4:1¶And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
(he was serious in pleasing God) the heart was pure!An to also note Law broken, that older child”s god given credibility to rule was given over to serve the younger…Abel commenced blood sacrificing an offering.. against cain first born… fruits of the ground….Jesus may have lived to a grey head old man if Cain's barley was prefered an favored…..this to could have been as pleasing to the God that latter called of the sacrifice an offering anyway…
Chatity,Scriptures assume you believe God is loving at will intetpret it according to that love.
Quote Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. ” Quote Deuteronomy 17:1
New International Version (NIV)17 Do not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect or flaw in it, for that would be detestable to him.
Since God is unhappy with Cain's sacrifice; it means it had a defect. A defect that was mirrored in Cain's heart.
We are told Abel sacrificed the best parts of his best animals while Cain just gave some of his crops. Cain merely had to change his ways and put more effort into giving the best of best to God; just as Abel did. Instead he chose to get rid of his competition.
WOW! SPECKS FOR ITSELF SIR…iT SURE IS AS INSANE AS IT SOUNDS…THAT EVEN, SERVES, NEVER ARGUE WITH FOOLS.. LEAST THE ON LOOKER MAY NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE, HENCE, FOOLISHNESS MIGHT RIEGN…Gen 5:1¶This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6¶And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Gen 5:9¶And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
Gen 5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:12¶And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
Gen 5:13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Gen 5:15¶And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Gen 5:16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:18¶And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
Gen 5:19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Gen 5:21¶And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.
Gen 5:25¶And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
Gen 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Gen 5:28¶And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This [same] shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Gen 5:30 And Lamech lived aft
er he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:Gen 5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
Gen 5:32¶And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Return to TopChap: Verse:
Cite This Page:
Blue Letter Bible. “Book of Beginnings – Genesis 5 – (KJV – King James Version).”Charity,
You are correct in pointing out the injustice and bias of the Genesis story as it was written by biased men who created God in mans own image.
When the Hebrew priest redacted, edited and wrote the Genesis story during the Babylonian captivity they were using a very old oral tradition about the times of Adam and Eve.
Note that Cain and Able are making offerings to presumably Adams religion, after all, how much work for food does a family of 4 need in a tropical garden?
???No, the bias that made it's way into the story is the age old conflict between hunter-herder and farmers.
Consider this explanation about the real story may have been from my own personal religious beliefs:
2. Cain and Abel
(848.1) 76:2.1 Less than two years after Cain’s birth, Abel was born, the first child of Adam and Eve to be born in the second garden. When Abel grew up to the age of twelve years, he elected to be a herder; Cain had chosen to follow agriculture.
(848.2) 76:2.2 Now, in those days it was customary to make offerings to the priesthood of the things at hand. Herders would bring of their flocks, farmers of the fruits of the fields; and in accordance with this custom, Cain and Abel likewise made periodic offerings to the priests. The two boys had many times argued about the relative merits of their vocations, and Abel was not slow to note that preference was shown for his animal sacrifices. In vain did Cain appeal to the traditions of the first Eden, to the former preference for the fruits of the fields. But this Abel would not allow, and he taunted his older brother in his discomfiture.
(848.3) 76:2.3 In the days of the first Eden, Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice so that Cain had a justifiable precedent for his contentions. It was, however, difficult to organize the religious life of the second Eden. Adam was burdened with a thousand and one details associated with the work of building, defense, and agriculture. Being much depressed spiritually, he intrusted the organization of worship and education to those of Nodite extraction who had served in these capacities in the first garden; and in even so short a time the officiating Nodite priests were reverting to the standards and rulings of pre-Adamic times. *
(848.4) 76:2.4 The two boys never got along well, and this matter of sacrifices further contributed to the growing hatred between them. Abel knew he was the son of both Adam and Eve and never failed to impress upon Cain that Adam was not his father. Cain was not pure violet as his father was of the Nodite race later admixed with the blue and the red man and with the aboriginal Andonic stock. And all of this, with Cain’s natural bellicose inheritance, caused him to nourish an ever-increasing hatred for his younger brother.
(848.5) 76:2.5 The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel’s taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him.
(848.6) 76:2.6 The observation of Abel’s conduct establishes the value of environment and education as factors in character development. Abel had an ideal inheritance, and heredity lies at the bottom of all character; but the influence of an inferior environment virtually neutralized this magnificent inheritance. Abel, especially during his younger years, was greatly influenced by his unfavorable surroundings. He would have become an entirely different person had he lived to be twenty-five or thirty; his superb inheritance would then have shown itself. While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance.
(849.1) 76:2.7 The death of Abel became known to his parents when his dogs brought the flocks home without their master. To Adam and Eve, Cain was fast becoming the grim reminder of their folly, and they encouraged him in his decision to leave the garden.
(849.2) 76:2.8 Cain’s life in Mesopotamia had not been exactly happy since he was in such a peculiar way symbolic of the default. It was not that his associates were unkind to him, but he had not been unaware of their subconscious resentment of his presence. But Cain knew that, since he bore no tribal mark, he would be killed by the first neighboring tribesmen who might chance to meet him. Fear, and some remorse, led him to repent. Cain had never been indwelt by an Adjuster, had always been defiant of the family discipline and disdainful of his father’s religion. But he now went to Eve, his mother, and asked for spiritual help and guidance, and when he honestly sought divine assistance, an Adjuster indwelt him. And this Adjuster, dwelling within and looking out, gave Cain a distinct advantage of superiority which classed him with the greatly feared tribe of Adam.
(849.3) 76:2.9 And so Cain departed for the land of Nod, east of the second Eden. He became a great leader among one group of his father’s people and did, to a certain degree, fulfill the predictions of Serapatatia, for he did promote peace between this division of the Nodites and the Adamites throughout his lifetime. Cain married Remona, his distant cousin, and their first son, Enoch, became the head of the Elamite Nodites. And for hundreds of years the Elamites and the Adamites continued to be at peace.” UB
Colter
Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,06:41) Charity, You are correct in pointing out the injustice and bias of the Genesis story as it was written by biased men who created God in mans own image.
When the Hebrew priest redacted, edited and wrote the Genesis story during the Babylonian captivity they were using a very old oral tradition about the times of Adam and Eve.
Note that Cain and Able are making offerings to presumably Adams religion, after all, how much work for food does a family of 4 need in a tropical garden?
???No, the bias that made it's way into the story is the age old conflict between hunter-herder and farmers.
Consider this explanation about the real story may have been from my own personal religious beliefs:
2. Cain and Abel
(848.1) 76:2.1 Less than two years after Cain’s birth, Abel was born, the first child of Adam and Eve to be born in the second garden. When Abel grew up to the age of twelve years, he elected to be a herder; Cain had chosen to follow agriculture.
(848.2) 76:2.2 Now, in those days it was customary to make offerings to the priesthood of the things at hand. Herders would bring of their flocks, farmers of the fruits of the fields; and in accordance with this custom, Cain and Abel likewise made periodic offerings to the priests. The two boys had many times argued about the relative merits of their vocations, and Abel was not slow to note that preference was shown for his animal sacrifices. In vain did Cain appeal to the traditions of the first Eden, to the former preference for the fruits of the fields. But this Abel would not allow, and he taunted his older brother in his discomfiture.
(848.3) 76:2.3 In the days of the first Eden, Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice so that Cain had a justifiable precedent for his contentions. It was, however, difficult to organize the religious life of the second Eden. Adam was burdened with a thousand and one details associated with the work of building, defense, and agriculture. Being much depressed spiritually, he intrusted the organization of worship and education to those of Nodite extraction who had served in these capacities in the first garden; and in even so short a time the officiating Nodite priests were reverting to the standards and rulings of pre-Adamic times. *
(848.4) 76:2.4 The two boys never got along well, and this matter of sacrifices further contributed to the growing hatred between them. Abel knew he was the son of both Adam and Eve and never failed to impress upon Cain that Adam was not his father. Cain was not pure violet as his father was of the Nodite race later admixed with the blue and the red man and with the aboriginal Andonic stock. And all of this, with Cain’s natural bellicose inheritance, caused him to nourish an ever-increasing hatred for his younger brother.
(848.5) 76:2.5 The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel’s taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him.
(848.6) 76:2.6 The observation of Abel’s conduct establishes the value of environment and education as factors in character development. Abel had an ideal inheritance, and heredity lies at the bottom of all character; but the influence of an inferior environment virtually neutralized this magnificent inheritance. Abel, especially during his younger years, was greatly influenced by his unfavorable surroundings. He would have become an entirely different person had he lived to be twenty-five or thirty; his superb inheritance would then have shown itself. While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance.
(849.1) 76:2.7 The death of Abel became known to his parents when his dogs brought the flocks home without their master. To Adam and Eve, Cain was fast becoming the grim reminder of their folly, and they encouraged him in his decision to leave the garden.
(849.2) 76:2.8 Cain’s life in Mesopotamia had not been exactly happy since he was in such a peculiar way symbolic of the default. It was not that his associates were unkind to him, but he had not been unaware of their subconscious resentment of his presence. But Cain knew that, since he bore no tribal mark, he would be killed by the first neighboring tribesmen who might chance to meet him. Fear, and some remorse, led him to repent. Cain had never been indwelt by an Adjuster, had always been defiant of the family discipline and disdainful of his father’s religion. But he now went to Eve, his mother, and asked for spiritual help and guidance, and when he honestly sought divine assistance, an Adjuster indwelt him. And this Adjuster, dwelling within and looking out, gave Cain a distinct advantage of superiority which classed him with the greatly feared tribe of Adam.
(849.3) 76:2.9 And so Cain departed for the land of Nod, east of the second Eden. He became a great leader among one group of his father’s people and did, to a certain degree, fulfill the predictions of Serapatatia, for he did promote peace between this division of the Nodites and the Adamites throughout his lifetime. Cain married Remona, his distant cousin, and their first son, Enoch, became the head of the Elamite Nodites. And for hundreds of years the Elamites and the Adamites continued to be at peace.” UB
Colter
colter
how long did it take you to conclude this false understanding ,a couple minutes
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
Nick,I do not have to add the word 'son' to the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word, since the word 'son' is mentioned MANY times in the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. Context is not pertaining to one single verse. You remind me of an animal rights friend of mine that uses the Scripture verse of Isayah 66:3 out of context and says “He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man.”, and then in turn he uses the the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” and builds his own personal belief that Scripture teaches that we are not to kill animals or men. One can create a myriad of beliefs by taking any single verse of Scripture out of context! Take your foolishness and present it to Mike and t8, since they seem to be the ones that you have the most fun with!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 30 2012,03:07) Quote (kerwin @ April 28 2012,20:34) Frank, Translating the Greek genders to neuters is also acceptable as it does not meaningfully change the message and takes into account the lack of gendered nouns and pronouns in the English language. Either way the message is understandable to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Is it acceptable if it does “meaningfully change the message”, Kerwin?For example, should we change the masuline pronouns associated with God to neuter, and say “IT created man in ITS image”?
Frank just needs to learn that the pronouns associated with the Word in John 1 are MASCULINE, and therefore John was referring to a HE, no matter how various translations rendered it throughout the years.
We can't just go around changing the scriptures to suit us, can we?
FRANK, the pronouns were written in the MASCULINE form by John, so you need the play the hand you've been dealt and live with it.
Mike,Don't be fooled! Yahchanan never done any of the translations that you are reading!
Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2012,02:18) Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,06:41) Charity, You are correct in pointing out the injustice and bias of the Genesis story as it was written by biased men who created God in mans own image.
When the Hebrew priest redacted, edited and wrote the Genesis story during the Babylonian captivity they were using a very old oral tradition about the times of Adam and Eve.
Note that Cain and Able are making offerings to presumably Adams religion, after all, how much work for food does a family of 4 need in a tropical garden?
???No, the bias that made it's way into the story is the age old conflict between hunter-herder and farmers.
Consider this explanation about the real story may have been from my own personal religious beliefs:
2. Cain and Abel
(848.1) 76:2.1 Less than two years after Cain’s birth, Abel was born, the first child of Adam and Eve to be born in the second garden. When Abel grew up to the age of twelve years, he elected to be a herder; Cain had chosen to follow agriculture.
(848.2) 76:2.2 Now, in those days it was customary to make offerings to the priesthood of the things at hand. Herders would bring of their flocks, farmers of the fruits of the fields; and in accordance with this custom, Cain and Abel likewise made periodic offerings to the priests. The two boys had many times argued about the relative merits of their vocations, and Abel was not slow to note that preference was shown for his animal sacrifices. In vain did Cain appeal to the traditions of the first Eden, to the former preference for the fruits of the fields. But this Abel would not allow, and he taunted his older brother in his discomfiture.
(848.3) 76:2.3 In the days of the first Eden, Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice so that Cain had a justifiable precedent for his contentions. It was, however, difficult to organize the religious life of the second Eden. Adam was burdened with a thousand and one details associated with the work of building, defense, and agriculture. Being much depressed spiritually, he intrusted the organization of worship and education to those of Nodite extraction who had served in these capacities in the first garden; and in even so short a time the officiating Nodite priests were reverting to the standards and rulings of pre-Adamic times. *
(848.4) 76:2.4 The two boys never got along well, and this matter of sacrifices further contributed to the growing hatred between them. Abel knew he was the son of both Adam and Eve and never failed to impress upon Cain that Adam was not his father. Cain was not pure violet as his father was of the Nodite race later admixed with the blue and the red man and with the aboriginal Andonic stock. And all of this, with Cain’s natural bellicose inheritance, caused him to nourish an ever-increasing hatred for his younger brother.
(848.5) 76:2.5 The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel’s taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him.
(848.6) 76:2.6 The observation of Abel’s conduct establishes the value of environment and education as factors in character development. Abel had an ideal inheritance, and heredity lies at the bottom of all character; but the influence of an inferior environment virtually neutralized this magnificent inheritance. Abel, especially during his younger years, was greatly influenced by his unfavorable surroundings. He would have become an entirely different person had he lived to be twenty-five or thirty; his superb inheritance would then have shown itself. While a good environment cannot contribute much toward really overcoming the character handicaps of a base heredity, a bad environment can very effectively spoil an excellent inheritance, at least during the younger years of life. Good social environment and proper education are indispensable soil and atmosphere for getting the most out of a good inheritance.
(849.1) 76:2.7 The death of Abel became known to his parents when his dogs brought the flocks home without their master. To Adam and Eve, Cain was fast becoming the grim reminder of their folly, and they encouraged him in his decision to leave the garden.
(849.2) 76:2.8 Cain’s life in Mesopotamia had not been exactly happy since he was in such a peculiar way symbolic of the default. It was not that his associates were unkind to him, but he had not been unaware of their subconscious resentment of his presence. But Cain knew that, since he bore no tribal mark, he would be killed by the first neighboring tribesmen who might chance to meet him. Fear, and some remorse, led him to repent. Cain had never been indwelt by an Adjuster, had always been defiant of the family discipline and disdainful of his father’s religion. But he now went to Eve, his mother, and asked for spiritual help and guidance, and when he honestly sought divine assistance, an Adjuster indwelt him. And this Adjuster, dwelling within and looking out, gave Cain a distinct advantage of superiority which classed him with the greatly feared tribe of Adam.
(849.3) 76:2.9 And so Cain departed for the land of Nod, east of the second Eden. He became a great leader among one group of his father’s people and did, to a certain degree, fulfill the predictions of Serapatatia, for he did promote peace between this division of the Nodites and the Adamites throughout his lifetime. Cain married Remona, his distant cousin, and their first son, Enoch, became the head of the Elamite Nodites. And for hundreds of years the Elamites and the Adamites continued to be at peace.” UB
Colter
colter how long did it take you to conclude this false understanding ,a couple minutes
Hi terraricca,Well, even as a child i knew the Genesis story was a porky. I used to ask uncomfortable questions in Sunday school which went unanswered by the innocent teachers. I've always known that Noah's flood was a vast exageration, so latter in life, when I found a better explanation then those more primitive teachings, I was better able to accept them. But ya have to assume that when a story is written by people who call themselves “Gods chosen people” then they may take certain liberties with how they themselves figure into world history.
Colter
colter
Quote Hi terraricca, Well, even as a child i knew the Genesis story was a porky. I used to ask uncomfortable questions in Sunday school which went unanswered by the innocent teachers. I've always known that Noah's flood was a vast exageration, so latter in life, when I found a better explanation then those more primitive teachings, I was better able to accept them. But ya have to assume that when a story is written by people who call themselves “Gods chosen people” then they may take certain liberties with how they themselves figure into world history.
Colter
it is obvious from your explanation that you have rejected Gods word and the sacrifice of his son ,and so your faith is null, you are a social believer not in God but in men ability to learn to live in a social way,
this is the mystery of the gospel.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,04:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
Nick,I do not have to add the word 'son' to the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word, since the word 'son' is mentioned MANY times in the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. Context is not pertaining to one single verse. You remind me of an animal rights friend of mine that uses the Scripture verse of Isayah 66:3 out of context and says “He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man.”, and then in turn he uses the the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” and builds his own personal belief that Scripture teaches that we are not to kill animals or men. One can create a myriad of beliefs by taking any single verse of Scripture out of context! Take your foolishness and present it to Mike and t8, since they seem to be the ones that you have the most fun with!
Nick,BTW, it seems you have found a new friend in kerwin, so both of you can spew your philosophical Greek garbage in Mike and t8's direction, since I no use for such. My interest lies in the inspired word of Father Yahweh and not in the mere words of insignificant mere men.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,05:20) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,04:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
Nick,I do not have to add the word 'son' to the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word, since the word 'son' is mentioned MANY times in the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. Context is not pertaining to one single verse. You remind me of an animal rights friend of mine that uses the Scripture verse of Isayah 66:3 out of context and says “He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man.”, and then in turn he uses the the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” and builds his own personal belief that Scripture teaches that we are not to kill animals or men. One can create a myriad of beliefs by taking any single verse of Scripture out of context! Take your foolishness and present it to Mike and t8, since they seem to be the ones that you have the most fun with!
Nick,BTW, it seems you have found a new friend in kerwin, so both of you can spew your philosophical Greek garbage in Mike and t8's direction, since I no use for such. My interest lies in the inspired word of Father Yahweh and not in the mere words of insignificant mere men.
I *have no use for such GARBAGE!Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2012,04:44) colter Quote Hi terraricca, Well, even as a child i knew the Genesis story was a porky. I used to ask uncomfortable questions in Sunday school which went unanswered by the innocent teachers. I've always known that Noah's flood was a vast exageration, so latter in life, when I found a better explanation then those more primitive teachings, I was better able to accept them. But ya have to assume that when a story is written by people who call themselves “Gods chosen people” then they may take certain liberties with how they themselves figure into world history.
Colter
it is obvious from your explanation that you have rejected Gods word and the sacrifice of his son ,and so your faith is null, you are a social believer not in God but in men ability to learn to live in a social way,
this is the mystery of the gospel.
Jesus didn't believe the OT was “Gods word”. The OT doesn’t even say it's “Gods Word”.Jesus' Gospel, long before the unjust cross, did not teach human sacrifice. That idea came from the Pagans that invented Christianity as well as the Jewish converts who were used to blood sacrifice. Jesus didn't teach, preach or practice blood sacrifice. Drinking blood and eating flesh is a vampire thing.
Colter
Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,05:28) Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2012,04:44) colter Quote Hi terraricca, Well, even as a child i knew the Genesis story was a porky. I used to ask uncomfortable questions in Sunday school which went unanswered by the innocent teachers. I've always known that Noah's flood was a vast exageration, so latter in life, when I found a better explanation then those more primitive teachings, I was better able to accept them. But ya have to assume that when a story is written by people who call themselves “Gods chosen people” then they may take certain liberties with how they themselves figure into world history.
Colter
it is obvious from your explanation that you have rejected Gods word and the sacrifice of his son ,and so your faith is null, you are a social believer not in God but in men ability to learn to live in a social way,
this is the mystery of the gospel.
Jesus didn't believe the OT was “Gods word”. The OT doesn’t even say it's “Gods Word”.Jesus' Gospel, long before the unjust cross, did not teach human sacrifice. That idea came from the Pagans that invented Christianity as well as the Jewish converts who were used to blood sacrifice. Jesus didn't teach, preach or practice blood sacrifice. Drinking blood and eating flesh is a vampire thing.
Colter
Colter,You believe that Yahshua did not believe the so called “Old Testament” was his and our Father Yahweh's word? Then why is he recorded in the so-called “New Testament” as quoting from it saying:
“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh.'”
“It is also written: ‘Do not put your Mighty One to the test.’ “
“For it is written: ‘Worship Yahweh your mighty One, and serve Him only.’”
Certainly sounds to me like he believes it!
“Away from me, Satan!” (Mattithyah [Matthew] 4:1-11
If you do not believe this source, you must be getting your history of the “Jesus” that you are familiar with from a completely different sources than what we are speaking of!
Maybe what you posted was in error and you meant to say:
“Well, even as a porky i knew the Genesis story was childish.”
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,04:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
Nick,I do not have to add the word 'son' to the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word, since the word 'son' is mentioned MANY times in the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. Context is not pertaining to one single verse. You remind me of an animal rights friend of mine that uses the Scripture verse of Isayah 66:3 out of context and says “He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man.”, and then in turn he uses the the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” and builds his own personal belief that Scripture teaches that we are not to kill animals or men. One can create a myriad of beliefs by taking any single verse of Scripture out of context! Take your foolishness and present it to Mike and t8, since they seem to be the ones that you have the most fun with!
Hi Frank,
Yes Jesus Christ is the Son of God.But the verse in question does not have Son in it yet you can assume it should?
Save your bile and be more accurate.
Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,05:28)
Jesus didn't believe the OT was “Gods word”. The OT doesn’t even say it's “Gods Word”.Colter
Hi Colter, why then did Jesus remediate the covenant of YHVH? (see Jer.31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:7-11)“Jesus Christ”(151) was “The Testator”(151): “Jesus”(74) remediated our
Testament with “GOD”(26); and “Testament”(117) in Greek is “Diatheke”(63).
God's Signature
Proof of God=117
GOD(26) → The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74) → The LORD JEHOVAH(151)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)
“Testament”=117 in Greek is “Diatheke”= 63.Jesus death on the cross remediated our “Testament”=117 with GOD; יהוה האלהים=117(JEHOVAH GOD). (Jer.31:31-34)
“The Testator”=151 was “Jesus Christ”=151(Heb.9:15-17: For this cause He (Jesus) is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for
the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first (Old) Testament, that they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity
be the death of “The Testator”=151. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of
NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES.) “Jesus Christ”=151 was “The Testator”=151.
“Fruit”(74) equals “Jesus”(74)John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat (emphasizing Jesus=74)
fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die, it brings forth much “fruit”=74.John 16:7: Nevertheless I (Jesus=74) tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away, the Comforter (Holy Spirit=151) will not come unto you; but if I depart,
I will send the [God Spirit=117] unto you. (that's because: “YHVH GOD is One”=151)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
(LINK to the thread THAT PROVES GOD’s EXISTENCE)Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,05:55) Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,05:28) Quote (terraricca @ May 01 2012,04:44) colter Quote Hi terraricca, Well, even as a child i knew the Genesis story was a porky. I used to ask uncomfortable questions in Sunday school which went unanswered by the innocent teachers. I've always known that Noah's flood was a vast exageration, so latter in life, when I found a better explanation then those more primitive teachings, I was better able to accept them. But ya have to assume that when a story is written by people who call themselves “Gods chosen people” then they may take certain liberties with how they themselves figure into world history.
Colter
it is obvious from your explanation that you have rejected Gods word and the sacrifice of his son ,and so your faith is null, you are a social believer not in God but in men ability to learn to live in a social way,
this is the mystery of the gospel.
Jesus didn't believe the OT was “Gods word”. The OT doesn’t even say it's “Gods Word”.Jesus' Gospel, long before the unjust cross, did not teach human sacrifice. That idea came from the Pagans that invented Christianity as well as the Jewish converts who were used to blood sacrifice. Jesus didn't teach, preach or practice blood sacrifice. Drinking blood and eating flesh is a vampire thing.
Colter
Colter,You believe that Yahshua did not believe the so called “Old Testament” was his and our Father Yahweh's word? Then why is he recorded in the so-called “New Testament” as quoting from it saying:
“It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh.'”
“It is also written: ‘Do not put your Mighty One to the test.’ “
“For it is written: ‘Worship Yahweh your mighty One, and serve Him only.’”
Certainly sounds to me like he believes it!
“Away from me, Satan!” (Mattithyah [Matthew] 4:1-11
If you do not believe this source, you must be getting your history of the “Jesus” that you are familiar with from a completely different sources than what we are speaking of!
Maybe what you posted was in error and you meant to say:
“Well, even as a porky i knew the Genesis story was childish.”
The New York Times says a lot of things but not all of it is true.Jesus quoted some truth's of the OT writings and let the erroneous concepts die on the vine.
Colter
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2012,06:06) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 01 2012,04:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2012,16:13) Hi Frank,
ONLY BEGOTTEN was used in the context of the WORD.
Would you like to ADD “SON” there?
Nick,I do not have to add the word 'son' to the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word, since the word 'son' is mentioned MANY times in the context of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. Context is not pertaining to one single verse. You remind me of an animal rights friend of mine that uses the Scripture verse of Isayah 66:3 out of context and says “He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man.”, and then in turn he uses the the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” and builds his own personal belief that Scripture teaches that we are not to kill animals or men. One can create a myriad of beliefs by taking any single verse of Scripture out of context! Take your foolishness and present it to Mike and t8, since they seem to be the ones that you have the most fun with!
Hi Frank,
Yes Jesus Christ is the Son of God.But the verse in question does not have Son in it yet you can assume it should?
Save your bile and be more accurate.
Nick,The verse that you submitted does not have the word 'son' in it, but there are many translations of this verse that do have the word 'son' in it, since they are quite aware from the CONTEXT OF the VERSE that the words “only begotten” is clearly in reference to Father Yahweh's son.
Save you bile so you can extract it from your gut and further eat it later!
Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2012,06:13) Quote (Colter @ May 01 2012,05:28)
Jesus didn't believe the OT was “Gods word”. The OT doesn’t even say it's “Gods Word”.Colter
Hi Colter, why then did Jesus remediate the covenant of YHVH? (see Jer.31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:7-11)“Jesus Christ”(151) was “The Testator”(151): “Jesus”(74) remediated our
Testament with “GOD”(26); and “Testament”(117) in Greek is “Diatheke”(63).
God's Signature
Proof of God=117
GOD(26) → The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74) → The LORD JEHOVAH(151)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)
“Testament”=117 in Greek is “Diatheke”= 63.Jesus death on the cross remediated our “Testament”=117 with GOD; יהוה האלהים=117(JEHOVAH GOD). (Jer.31:31-34)
“The Testator”=151 was “Jesus Christ”=151(Heb.9:15-17: For this cause He (Jesus) is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for
the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first (Old) Testament, that they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a Testament is, there must also of necessity
be the death of “The Testator”=151. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of
NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES.) “Jesus Christ”=151 was “The Testator”=151.
“Fruit”(74) equals “Jesus”(74)John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat (emphasizing Jesus=74)
fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die, it brings forth much “fruit”=74.John 16:7: Nevertheless I (Jesus=74) tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away, the Comforter (Holy Spirit=151) will not come unto you; but if I depart,
I will send the [God Spirit=117] unto you. (that's because: “YHVH GOD is One”=151)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
(LINK to the thread THAT PROVES GOD’s EXISTENCE)
Abraham had faith in a future day without knowing what that was for.The Son did come, but when the Hebrews rewrote the OT books they converted ordinary secular history into miraculous history. The confusion they caused lead to a rejection of Jesus by the vast majority of Jews as well as a false understanding of history by Christians.
Colter
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
